VIA picks up design win as Samsung picks Nano over Atom

Nano will finally launch next quarter, in the form of a netbook and a UMPC, …

The netbook platform wars are heating up, as Intel and NVIDIA sling FUD over the coming competition between NVIDIA's Ion platform and Intel's GN40 platform. Netbook processors aren't the subject of nearly as much competition; Intel's Atom processor reigns supreme in every major brand of netbook. VIA, seeking to change this by marketing its competing Nano processor, has just won its first two victories as Samsung announces it will use Nano in its upcoming NC20 netbook and Q1EX-71G UMPC. Information about these devices can help us figure out what's up with Nano.

Nano is a bit of an enigma. It "launched" almost a year ago, and review sites were sent samples. The Ars review in July 2008 was fairly adulatory; Nano came up ahead of Atom in nearly every performance category, and in our assessment, could even compete with the dual-core Atom 330 for some purposes. Moreover, Nano is completely compatible with its C7 predecessor, so almost no design work is required to use it in preexisting C7 products. However, since that time, no Nano products have launched.

It's not entirely clear why. We don't know how much Nano costs, but at a significantly larger die size, on rented fab space, it's possible that it's significantly more expensive than Atom, which matters a lot in the margin-strapped netbook space. VIA may also have simply been unable to guarantee large shipments due to some kind of manufacturing problem. It's also possible, although remote in the extreme, that pressure from Intel has deterred vendors. The new devices, a netbook and a UMPC, both from Samsung, may help us answer these questions.

The NC20 will sport a 12.1", 1280*800 screen, a Nano 1.3Ghz processor (72 percent of the clock speed of the 1.8Ghz Nano Ars tested in July), a full-sized keyboard, a gig of RAM, a webcam, and a card reader. Most pleasingly, though, the NC20 carries a six-cell battery which Samsung claims will offer 6.5 hours of battery life, placing it among the upper tier of six-cell Atom netbooks with a significantly larger screen. It will run Windows XP, have a SATA hard disk or SSD, and weigh 3.3 pounds.

This information would suggest that Nano is somewhat more power-consuming than Atom, and suited only for larger netbooks. The new UMPC, however, makes this narrative falter. The Q1EX-71G is a keyboardless 7" UMPC with Windows XP Tablet, weighing only a pound and a half, carrying a netbook-standard 1024*600 screen, 1.2Ghz Nano processor, two gigs of memory, and a 1.8" hard disk. Despite all this hardware in its diminutive size, however, the new UMPC will sport a 4.5-hour battery life, Samsung claims. VIA may have made thermal and power improvements to Nano since the Ars review, and it may be significantly improved.

On the other hand, Nano is still behind Atom in the battery department; Fujitsu's 5.6" lifebook, at the same size and weight, manages 7.5 hours on a similar four-cell Lithium Ion battery. The NC20 manages 6.5 hours, while Asus' similar Eee 1000HE claims 9.5 hours. The power consumption contrast between Nano and Atom seems to favor Atom slightly.

The NC20 and the Q1EX-71G both use VIA's anemic Chrome9 VX800 IGP, which can't handle Aero or HD video playback. Strangely, though, VIA claims that in the NC20, Nano "is coupled with the VIA VX800 system media processor with support for...high definition video and audio playback." It's possible VIA has pulled some coup, but with the same IGP and a lower-clocked Nano, some skepticism about HD playback on the NC20 is warranted.

Preorder leaks have pegged the cost of the NC20 at $565, which is a little hefty for a netbook. If part of the increased cost is Nano, the new processor may find itself confined to high-end devices. On the other hand, preorders have pegged the new UMPC at a mere $775, only slightly more than Samsung's aging, McCaslin-based Q1U-ELXP UMPC, while Atom-based devices are more expensive. It's clear that the UMPC market's low end is high enough for the cost difference, if it exists, not to matter.

We don't know exactly what's going on. Why didn't Nano-based devices launch before and why are they launching now. We don't know exactly what Nano costs or how much power it consumes. The answers to these questions will determine how Nano does and what sectors of the mobile and ultramobile space it competes in. But VIA, which knows all of these things, must be as glad as we are to see Nano finally, in whatever form, hit the streets.

15 Reader Comments

That's all you need to know right there. I wouldn't wish one of these things on my worst enemy.

Maybe a nano on a headless system, but until they put a non-Via graphics adapter in, no way. I don't know why Nvidia doesn't link up Via on this stuff. You'd think a Nano/Ion combo would make "enthusist" netbooks a reality.

Intel's Atom processor reigns supreme in every major brand of netbook. VIA, seeking to change this by marketing its competing Nano processor, has just won its first two victories as Samsung announces it will use Nano in its upcoming NC20 netbook and Q1EX-71G UMPC.

ha ha ha very funny I don't see any fight here . take it if you want . Intel don't care .

On what basis is Ars claiming that VIA's graphics system can't run Aero? Did you test if yourself? I have a Mini-Note 2133 with a Chrome 9 graphics solution, and I've never had any problems running Aero. Haven't benchmarked it, but I haven't noticed any slowdowns or graphical glitches compared to when Aero is turned off, or when I run XP.

Ars is talking out its rear, apparently. At the very least the writers could search for the reviews already out for the nc20--the netbook is already out in Europe, and has been for nearly a month--and try to ferret out some actual facts, rather than rabid Intel fanboyisms. Guess that's too hard.

I speak from my own experience with the 2133, which had it sluggish and low-performing. If that constitutes "running" Aero, then I don't want Aero. By comparison, the desktops and laptops I've used with other graphics solutions, even the higher-end integrated ones like the 780G, are much smoother. Many others have echoed my claim, and this is part of why the 2133 was such a disappointment, after so much positive attention. I'm not blind to this issue. I speak also from Joel Hruska's Nano review, which indicted the Chrome9 graphics for their HD issues.

In light of all this, I think it's fair to say that "some skepticism" is warranted.

eyeless1:

The NC20 has the same GPU, and a similar but 30% lower clocked CPU, as the Nano setup Ars tested last year. I don't need to examine the specific product to express "some skepticism" about its ability, in light of the performance of prior products on the same platform.

Well, you should then say it does Aero slowly rather than "can't handle Aero," because that implies that Aero will not run at all because the integrated graphics do not support it.

That chipset's graphics suck, but I don't see how Intel's is any better. Oh sure, they came out with their own HD capable chipset. But I know of only nVidia's PureVideoHD that allows me to use Mplayer on Linux using VDPAU for HD acceleration. While Intel may not be forever out of the equation, using a $100+ piece of crap software from either WinDVD or Cyberlink is not my idea of HD acceleration.

Whoever gets Ion is the winner for me. But since I cannot wait, this is my board of choice, at least for a desktop:

I had the impression based on power envelopes that the nano and atom weren't really competing in the same space. Perhaps that's the reason for the lack of uptake and the underclocking of nano in this application?

But I know of only nVidia's PureVideoHD that allows me to use Mplayer on Linux using VDPAU for HD acceleration. While Intel may not be forever out of the equation, using a $100+ piece of crap software from either WinDVD or Cyberlink is not my idea of HD acceleration.

While you may be correct that only Nvidia's hardware allows VDPAU acceleration in MPlayer in linux, there's another option. If you're willing to use Intel's VA-API for acceleration, you can use not only Intel video chips (poulsbo at least, others in the future maybe), but also S3's Chrome stuff now (Phoronix article). The S3 support currently requires a recompiled MPlayer and supporting libraries, but it should be possible.

I'm really just hoping that AMD/ATI gets off its butt and releases documentation for XvBA, or just releases a new driver with VA-API/VDPAU compatibility. If they release documentation on XvBA, I'm sure someone will write a backend to translate between APIs.

Mostly I'm just hoping for either a fully working fglrx, or working RV770 3D in xorg-driver-radeon(hd). I'll be checking out the git repositories on that project soon to see if there's anything I can help with.

I think this article is unnecessarily harsh on the VIA Nano. Saying it doesn't run HD video (whatever that is) paints a misleading picture of the Nano's performance when (a) neither can Atom-based netbooks, and (b) the reviews I've seen show the NC20 playing 720p content with less than 50% CPU utilisation, which is a heck of a lot better than Atom netbooks despite the NC20 having to drive 67% more display pixels.

The NC20 also uses a Nano which goes up to 1.6 GHz when needed. It doesn't top out at 1.3 GHz as implied by the article. The Nano in the Samsung NC20 probably has a TDP of around 8 watts, which sounds high compared to the Atom, but one has to remember that the Atom in today's netbooks sits on a crap chipset that guzzles power, and is certainly at least a bit slower than the Nano at the same clock speed.

Getting over 6 hours of battery life out of the NC20, despite its bright 12-inch screen, shows that Nano + VIA VX800 + Chrome9 works pretty damn well in terms of energy efficiency, and offers usefully improved performance over the Atom in the process. And that's with a dodgy 65 nm process versus Intel's state-of-the-art 45 nm process.

I generally dislike Samsung the company, but I'm thrilled to see them willing to take a risk with a non-Intel CPU. Let's hope the NC20 sells well enough to keep VIA moving forward now that the C7-M sales are drying up with the end of the HP 2133.